The right sees the study as confirmation that single-payer healthcare would be far too expensive.

“It only seems expensive if you look at its effect on the federal budget alone. Families are already paying money through their insurance premiums. Wouldn’t it be better if there weren’t premiums, and families paid some portion of that money as taxes instead? Then the federal government could use its power to keep health care costs down, which would, in the end, save the families and businesses money, and ensure coverage for all.”

Slate

“Medicare currently covers the most expensive part of the population, seniors and Americans with disabilities. Adding younger people to Medicare would strengthen the system by creating a larger and healthier insurance pool. Furthermore... the plans add dental, vision, and hearing coverage, as well as other important benefit improvements.”

The right sees the study as confirmation that single-payer healthcare would be far too expensive.

“The federal government could double individual and corporate income tax revenues and they still wouldn’t have enough to fund Medicare for All on top of the rest of government expenses... The idea sounds good, but the math just doesn’t work. Democrats don’t have a good answer as to why.”

Washington Examiner

“Sanders has been pushing this in the national spotlight for at least three years, and he hasn’t even attempted a serious calculation of its cost? How would he know, then, that Mercatus’ estimate is too high, or even too low? This is what Democratic Socialism requires — demanding government control of economic sectors without knowing what it costs or how it will impact delivery.”